Making folks on the right blow a bowel is a pretty easy thing these days. But, boy oh boy, did a big one explode after this came out.
Time's Person of the Year was The Protester.
They spent most of the last few months trying to shift the narrative away from what is clearly a losing battle for them (inequality). It's a real stinker largely because it's true.
And it's obviously resonated with people. There is very little doubt in my mind that this will be the center issue of the election next year and is now part of the zeitgeist.
But if you read the article more closely you will see that it's not just the 99 percenters that are highlighted. This is an international movement of people with various concerns that have realized that they still have a voice. A Facebook page literally changed the government in Egypt. Libya has a new government. Syria won't be far behind.
All in all, this is a good thing. Change is tough for folks on the right and they don't like to bend much. Yet, as the tide turns, I think many of them are going to realize that if our country is going to remain significant in the world, we are going to have to address the issue of inequality. I'm not a huge fan of Larry Summers and it's fairly clear he had a hand in the Economic Collapse of 2008 but his recent piece in the Washington Post is an excellent primer on how to combat our rising inequality.I'll be talking more about this in the coming weeks as I break out each point and discuss whether or not it's feasible.
In the meantime, well done, people of the Earth. You shouted and now our leaders have to listen.
49 comments:
I think you are hoping that will be the center issue of the election next year.
What do we know about the new governments in Libya and Egypt?
Well, it's too soon to tell but we do know that they are driven by a large and youthful population that want their countries to be a part of the global marketplace and 21st century. I'm pretty skeptical of the panic mongering that is going on right now regarding the religious factions in those countries. We have religious factions in our country but I guess it's OK when we do it.
Y'know, last, it's OK to admit that you were wrong about "losing the narrative." It won't be the end of the world. After all, I've been wrong before and I'm doing just fine:)
This is an international movement of people....literally changed the government in ....has a new government....won't be far behind.
Does that mean Time's person of the 20th century should've been The Communist?
Change for changes sake isn't necessarily a desirable thing. You may think you can't get much worse that Ghadafi in Libya - until you do get something worse. It won't be hard to get worse governments in either Egypt or Syria, as flawed as they were (are).
I guess the founding fathers and colonists were all Communists as well, eh Guard Duck? I think you are missing the push for democratic elections.
I haven’t responded much on here lately. Maybe I should type something up.
“We have religious factions in our country but I guess it's OK when we do it.” You just love to throw that lazy charge out to those you are talking to. Misrepresenting your opponents viewpoint and logical fallacies are not critical thinking.
What logical fallacy am I talking about? Why it’s the old extremely idiotic tool in the world of debate called Reductio ad Absurdum - you take your opponents argument to its most extreme conclusion (the more absurd, the better). If done right, the person utilizing the fallacy hopes that his readers will see that the other sides arguments can be applied to achieve an end that most people would find laughable, and then you'll have your opponent backpedaling. The whole technique links a person (me), or idea, to a negative symbol (religious factions). The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol. Buzzer sounds – wrong. Try again – I’ve never said violence in the name of religion is ok and I’m not even a part of a religious faction.
Liberal big city mayors have told the OWS camps to get the hell out of dodge. That doesn’t happen to popular movements. You can pay attention to the words of Time magazine regarding OWS – I’ll pay attention to the actions that liberal big city mayors are engaging in.
I’m sure you would love the next election to be about class warfare between rich and poor because there will always be more poor than rich in any given population. Simply put class warfare buys votes for the Democrats and it fits right in with a divide and conquer strategy, not a Hope and Change strategy. Those ideas never gained ground here in the U.S. and class warfare rhetoric consistently fails to resonate with the electorate. The failure to resonate is usually exacerbated by the fact that most of the elites who are promoters of the class warfare ideology do not come close to practicing what they preach. This manifested itself clearly in 2004 when democrats ran a billionaire who is the richest person in the congress as someone speaking for the little guy. The fact that some people actually bought it speaks volumes for the capacity of humans for denial. You voted for and endorsed Kerry who spent a good part of his campaign fomenting class warfare in this country by denigrating the wealthy as though being wealthy is somehow inherently evil while he and his wife were sitting on one of the major fortunes of this nation. But wait – there’s more…how about Kerrys perfectly timed stock trades in healthcare companies during the Obamacare debates? Read about those? I sure did. You voted for him, therefore you must endorse that.
This is why liberals will need conservatives: you need us because you can't have "us versus them" without "them."
You can’t tell us what Obama has *accomplished* in the arena of reducing inequality, which is why you are going to stay on offense by campaigning against the rich instead of telling us what Obama has done. Simply passing legislation isn’t an accomplishment btw - results matter.
You and nikto (and none of the other libs on here) can’t tell us why extending tax cuts for only 2 months is a great idea. You can’t type up anything on the subject without talking about republicans. Cmon you critical thinkers – tell us why extending tax cuts for only 2 months is a good idea without posting a link or talking about republicans. Serial thrilla sure can’t – which is why he can’t post much more than one line, and it’s usually about other posters on here.
good post last in line
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/23/la-faces-millions-in-costs-for-occupy-damage/
too funny - In the ultimate irony, Villaraigosa told the media that the only way LA can pay for the damage is to cut spending elsewhere, presumably since they can’t afford to hike taxes on businesses any more than they have already. The net result will probably be reduced services to Angelenos, which is of course the opposite of what the Occupiers claimed to demand in their incoherent protests.
Meanwhile, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the Occupy demonstration has come to an embarrassing end. By the time their permit expired, the three-month protest had dwindled down to two tents.
2 tents? wow
I'm sure in the vivid fantasies of the left and OWS - they were just the same as the protesters of the Arab Spring. Never mind that there was very little chance of actually being killed for protesting.
As for the Arab Spring, well that hasn't turned out well yet, has it? Perhaps - and hopefully - it will, but as then I don't have high expectations. The longer I live and the more I learn - the more I realize how lucky this country was to form, grow and survive. Unlike the idiots of both left and right who seem to take it for granted.
I shall be interested to hear what your grand plan to reduce inequality is, and if there is any chance that it doesn't involve simply cutting off the legs of those you deem too tall.
There's no discussion of Obama on this blog anymore.
You can’t tell us what Obama has *accomplished* in the arena of reducing inequality, which is why you are going to stay on offense by campaigning against the rich instead of telling us what Obama has done.
Actually, I have spent quite a bit of time illustrating the great things our president has done only to be derided for cheering him on (recall my WTF has Obama done posts as well as many others followed by "go team blue" childish taunting) So which is it? Do I talk about him or not talk about him? Let me know when you guys make up your mind.
Meanwhile, here's a great list that speaks to your request.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
There are several items in this list that speak directly to reducing inequality.
Oh, and if you sat and thought about it for a moment, the Democrats and the left aren't the ones that are responsible for class warfare. It's almost as if you are blaming the victim. Shocking, as that has never happened before.
Do I talk about him or not talk about him?
You mean you can't talk about him without being a mindless team blue cheerleader? What happened to your self-proclaimed ability to see shades of gray? How can you not criticize some of what he has done? That's why you get called on being a shameless hack - because it is what you do. You have a hero, and you won't settle for anything less. I see Obama for what most people are that want to be President - someone who shouldn't be trusted with power; not really different from W.
I’m sure you would love the next election to be about class warfare between rich and poor because there will always be more poor than rich in any given population.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Dec/24/economic_inequality_an_issue_for_us_2012_campaign.html
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has already made clear he'll resist Obama's attempts to capitalize on the issue, adopting the language of Occupy Wall Street in an interview with the Washington Post this month where he called the president "a member of the 1 percent."
As I said, it's in the zeitgeist and now even the likely GOP nominee is using the terms. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you were wrong?
I think you need to stop looking at this as a "win" on a Democratic talking point and look at it in terms of the broader issue of how our inequality is affecting our ability to compete in the global marketplace. That's my chief concern. As I have said many times, I have no problem with rich people having more money than most people. That's how capitalism works and with that there will always be poor people. My problem is when the disparity is so great that we have a plutocracy and this simple fact holds us back from being more competitive.
My problem is when the disparity is so great that we have a plutocracy and this simple fact holds us back from being more competitive.
How?
I could see other arguments about why income inequality might be a problem, but this I don't get at all. So please expand on this.
"Actually, I have spent quite a bit of time illustrating the great things our president has done"
Not much of your writings on this blog have been devoted to Obamas policies and there are a lot of subjects or tidbits in the news that you have ignored. To answer your question - you do not talk about Obama anymore and my hunch is that you know that it sucks having to defend policies put forward by the guy you voted for and you don't seem to want to touch Solyndra, fast and furious or the military dumping dead bodies. For example - you know it wouldn't be too much fun to have to defend Kerrys stock trades on here (a man you voted for and endorsed) so you just keep talking about republicans and their reactions to things.
Apparently those policies designed to reduce inequality aren't working. I don't care what language Mitt Romney uses - I'm not a very big fan of him.
You tell me "I think you need to stop looking at this as a "win" on a Democratic talking point" right after saying (in your original entry) "what is clearly a losing battle for them (inequality). It's a real stinker largely because it's true".
So I need to stop thinking of this as a "win" in the same thread that you talk about what may be a "losing battle" for the GOP? There must now be a huge, huge difference between talking about a "win" and a "losing battle". Economic Growth policies have done and will do much better than Income Redistribution policies.
So, last says I don't talk about the president enough (one reason cited was a policy that W started) because I'm avoiding his faults. This is after he ignores the list of accomplishments I provided. Then we have juris who says I fawn over the president too much and making everybody sick with how much I talk about him. Again, which is it?
juris, I've done post after post on this which you have largely derided. Remember this recent one?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/12/and-it-continues.html
Then we have juris who says I fawn over the president too much and making everybody sick with how much I talk about him.
I only said the first part. Don't put words in my mouth. Yet again, you respond to last by whining about not getting any love for the Prez, and of course ignoring the One's faults. Now that you mention it, that is kind of sickening.
Remember this recent one?
Oh, in other words the same old Markadelphia bullshit.
That post/thread didn't answer the my question above - not even tangentially. Do you ever put two thoughts together?
You should, in two or three sentences, be able to expand on your "thought" about inequality and global competitiveness. That is why I asked. I guess the inability to do so really should tell me all I need to know. And I should stop expecting to you have the slightest idea what you actually are talking about. As long as you can stroke yourself while cheering your team. That's about all you got.
Policy started under W - and you would have ignored it just the same had it been Alberto Gonzalez as AG? Not likely.
Exactly Juris - very few people on here say he talks about Obama too much.
I saw the list of accomplishments you provided - and people are still (trying to) camping out in the streets because of inequality. Guess the problem isn't solved yet.
Guess we'll never know why cutting taxes for only 2 months is a good thing for the country.
That post you just linked to is par for the course - Obama has been president for 3 years now and you are still saying that we need to "start working on our problems" and "Obviously it has a lot to do with hubris and admission of error". No mention of Obama and blaming the other guys for everything.
Just click on any random month on the archives of this blog to see childish taunting from you.
getting legislation passed and spending money doesnt automatically solve the problem markadelphia. i see you cant explain why kicking the can down the road for 2 months on tax cuts is whats good for the country.
When juris is wrong about something and I call him on it, that's when the personal attacks usually start. When last is wrong (and won't admit it), that's when he says, "How come you never talk about Obama anymore?" You'd think by now, last, that I'm well aware of this redirect tactic.
I'm going to be talking quite a bit about the president in the next year as he is up for reelection. I think he's done a good job but he certainly isn't the right wing blogsphere bizarro warped perception ("The One") that has been fictionally ascribed to his supporters. He's done the best he can with what he was handed. So, I'm glad to here that "very few people" on here have a problem with me talking about him because, being an election year, I obviously will be. In fact, I started this awhile back with the label "Obama's policies."
I'm not a big endzone dance guy, last. His record speaks for itself. In addition to your redirect tactic above, you're essentially asking me, "What are you...chicken?" Do you honestly think I'm avoiding talking about the three things you mentioned? You might have a case if the president, say, failed to capture or kill the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. Or completely blew a recovery from a natural disaster. Or fell asleep while the financial sector "got drunk." Nothing on this level has happened with President Obama. You're really going to have to do better than that piddly little list.
Compare your list to three successes by the president (and there are many, many more) regarding the issue of inequality, I would pick the fact that, in regards to health, pre-exisisting conditions are now covered by law, the Lily Ledbetter Act was passed, and gay people are now allowed to serve openly in the military. Honestly, they're not even in the same ballpark. Care to show me a Republican that would have done those things?
the same old Markadelphia bullshit.
I can't be held responsible if you don't like facts, juris. With 70 percent of our economy being consumer spending, more money at the top is quite obviously a bad thing. As Hanauer so eloquently stated, he's not a fucking job creator-the 99 percent are job creators. This leads to our economy growing at a slower rate which erodes our standing in the global marketplace. Essentially, it's the same thing Manzi said in his piece that you sent to me.
You haven't offered any facts you fucking zealot. I asked you to expand on what connection you see between income inequality and global competitiveness. You linked to a previous discussion that had nothing to do with that. You do that a lot you know - link to something without any relevance and then stand there all smug and proud, about like a slow two-year old with a big poopie in his pants.
Again, if you had an actual thought and not just a slew of words, you could put together a few sentences to elaborate, to draw the connection. You must be the worst fucking teacher on the planet - because you can't explain a goddam thing. Apparently if one of your students dumps enough bullshit into a paper or test, you just pass them. How sad.
I think he's done a good job
Of course you do. He is your hero and all you will do is worship him. Not a second thought about the fact that his Administration has declared part of the law classified - something so outrageous that you would have howled endlessly if W had done (or even tried) the same thing (assuming of course that TPM or Kaos told you to do so).
Essentially, it's the same thing Manzi said in his piece that you sent to me.
Yes, and I said that part of Manzi's piece was opaque - and you could never explain that either. Just gotta believe, huh?
No need to admit it because I'm not wrong. You go with what Time magazine says (words) - I'll go with actions (democrat big city mayors telling them to GTFO and the Philly version of OWS only having 2 tents).
I don't care what you talk about - I just notice patterns.
Yes - I do think you are avoiding talking about those issues.
Is it really redirecting to ask any of you supporters to tell us all the good reasons to extend tax cuts for only 2 months? That's not redirecting - it's asking a question - a pretty simple one at that.
Regarding "getting drunk" - you weren't complaining about your house shooting up in value in the middle part of the last decade. Hindsight is always 20/20.
How does gays serving openly in the military (something I don't care about) affect inequality?
Hell I remember Obama offering businesses a $2500 tax credit for hiring veterans. What business is going to spend the $50,000 it takes to hire somebody to get a $2500 tax credit? If it is good for businesses to get a $2500 tax credit to hire veterans, wouldn't it be a good thing to just give a $2500 tax credit for ALL hires?
I don't consider the Lily Ledbetter situation a success and here is why.
Obama's words regarding her were “I think that it’s important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want.”
Except, of course, THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB. Judges have the task of applying the law as they are written and passed between the elective branches of government, the legislature and the executive. That responsibility does not rest with the one branch of government that is the least accountable to the voters.
In the case of Lily Ledbetter and her equal-pay suit...congress passed a law that had a statute of limitations for filing claims like the one she filed, which almost all laws have. Ledbetter did not meet that requirement and had her suit dismissed. One can argue that the law wasn’t written properly — opinions vary on that point — but the judge and the appellate courts followed the law as Congress passed it and as the President signed it. Instead of having Congress be responsible for their arguably poor legislation, Obama wants judges who will simply rewrite the law to suit their own opinion of fairness and justice. I disagree with that because I do not think it reduces inequality - I think it undermines the notion of representative government.
. I asked you to expand on what connection you see between income inequality and global competitiveness. You linked to a previous discussion that had nothing to do with that.
Are you serious with this? You don't see how a country whose economy expands sluggishly or minimally isn't competitive in the global marketplace? I'm not sure what's going on here but I know you are much smarter than this so you must be playing some sort of game here. Please stop and then we can possibly move forward.
No need to admit it because I'm not wrong.
So, you believe that the Occupy/We are the 99 percent movement is having little or no effect on the political landscape at present and will not have any perceptible effect on the election next year. Is that accurate? I want you on record saying as much as we head into the election next year.
Yes - I do think you are avoiding talking about those issues.
I just don't see what the big deal is with any of them. First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding "military dumping dead bodies" so it's not really possible to avoid something of which I am not aware. Let's see what a search brings..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/remains-of-war-dead-dumped-in-landfill/2011/11/09/gIQAz7dM6M_story.html
Well, here (as do other sources) it says that they did this from 2003 to 2008 and stopped the policy in June of 2008 so clearly that's all President Obama's fault.
The last time we talked about Solynda (loss of 535 million dollars) I brought up the 6 billion that went missing in Iraq and heard crickets. At least President Obama invested in something as opposed to just losing cash outright. More importantly, he learned his lesson and has since shifted his energy policy to essentially striving to level the playing field among all energy suppliers by attempting to eliminate oil subsidies and the like. Of course, he hasn't gotten anywhere due to Congressional intransigence but his stated goal is very free market oriented. I would think that you would like that.
And we should include in our Solyndra discussion why you guys really are trying to shit all over it...because it was green tech and if that ends up working out...holy sheeit....that would be another lost argument and we can't have that now, can we? So Solyndra should be equated with the Watergate break in and the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, eh?
The one that really perplexes me is fast and furious...must be a right wing blog/gun activist dealio. This was a program that started under Bush that Holder didn't know much about and, because he's a favorite pinata of the right (why he is one is SUCH a mystery...gosh, I have no idea...no clue whatsoever..hmmm...what a head scracther), is now Benedict Arnold. When someone on the right starts spitting in my face about this (actually happened at the gym a while back), the only thought that runs through my head is...so what? I mean, if you're going to be pissed about this, why aren't you pissed off about a whole slew of things that are far worse? I just don't get it. To me, it's a manufactured scandal (much like the Kerry swift boat baloney) that doesn't have any there there.
Like many things that the right foam at the mouth about, your three points are honestly a waste of time because: a)they don't actively work towards solving anything and b) it's an embarrassment to talk about them for you, not the president, because there is so little to them. Seriously, it's simply more "proving wrong" antics that gets us nowhere.
Why do you want me on record? Why? So you can “win the argument” next year? You want us “on the record” yet you can’t answer a simple question about the benefits of extending tax cuts for only 2 months?
I’m sure that there are lots of people who want to do away with inequality. I just have a real big skepticism about our governments/any governments ability to achieve that goal. I don’t know how much of an effect they will have on the election next year – and neither do you because neither one of us has a crystal ball. In the form they have presented themselves in up to now (camping out in parks, blocking ports, yelling in the streets, blocking rush hour traffic, interrupting speeches by politicians, and in general acting like children who didn’t get what they wanted) – my guess will be No – no effect. If they do a virtual campaign through social media and engage with those with an opposing viewpoint like adults (ie none of what I mentioned above) they very well could have an effect.
>The last time we talked about Solynda.
Last time we talk about Solyndra? We didn’t talk about Solyndra. All you did was ask a couple questions of us/me. In one of them you railed against a position I do not hold (probably so you could “win the argument” or something). Then you absolutely...
> brought up the 6 billion that went missing in Iraq
...which to me looks like a (drum roll please)...a REDIRECT, something you claim to hate in everyone else.
>More importantly, he learned his lesson...
Thanks for the laugh. And you know this how? Because you read his books 4 years ago? How about Sunpower – a company that received a $1.2 billion guaranteed loan from the government three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project. Federal subsidies for companies building manufacturing plants in Mexico sure doesn’t earn the tag Reducing Inequality to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html?wprss=rss_politics
> his stated goal
Funny how the “stated goal” doesn’t match the actions when it comes to Solyndra and SunPower. You like to hear the right words from politicians. When someone points out the actions, you redirect to conversing about Iraq...an issue that you think you can “win the argument” on.
>if that ends up working out
It hasn’t worked out. But I’m sure you just need 4 more years along with a lot more taxpayer subsidies to help out...but you’ll still be “on the road” to success at that point too.
>So Solyndra should be equated with the Watergate break in and the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, eh?
I never said that. Do you continue to misrepresent my position in order to “Win the Argument”? Let me put it down for the second time in this thread, because you’ve tried it again - Why it’s the old extremely idiotic tool in the world of debate called Reductio ad Absurdum - you take your opponents argument to its most extreme conclusion (the more absurd, the better). If done right, the person utilizing the fallacy hopes that his readers will see that the other sides arguments can be applied to achieve an end that most people would find laughable, and then you'll have your opponent backpedaling. The whole technique links a person (me), or idea, to a negative symbol (equating Solyndra to 100,000 deaths). The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol. Buzzer sounds – wrong.
> that Holder didn't know much about
Riiiiight. And you whipping the Race Card out of your wallet means the actual defense must be pretty flimsy.
> (actually happened at the gym a while back)
None of us care about what happens at the gym. Get those people to post here to speak for themselves because you seem to care a lot more about what they say than we do.
>if you're going to be pissed about this
I’m not pissed about it. You pulled that one out of nowhere.
>To me, it's a manufactured scandal.
Well, that settles it then. Perhaps you could wow us with links showing how exactly the Tea Party Movement or the NRA instigated an government program to sell massive amounts of firearms to straw purchasers and then rapidly lose track of the weapons? Bush did it too is a defense for you? Hell he was ruining your childrens future just a few years ago. Operation Wide Receiver involved Tracing and Controlled Delivery (a very common law enforcement tactic – agents on the scene, allowing the transfer to happen under circumstances they are in control of, conducting surveillance of the transfer, participating undercover in the transfer, etc. Then the take the parties down, make arrests and seize the commodities in question). The Wide Receiver program used RFID trackers to follow the weapons in addition to surveillance by agents of the Mexican and US authorities.
F&F sure seems to have involved uncontrolled deliveries of thousands of weapons, no physical surveillance, no agents on hand to make arrests, etc. That doesn’t sound like law enforcement, it sounds like aiding a criminal enterprise.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/
Oh yeah, and if I am wrong about Lily Ledbetter, please tell me why.
You don't see how a country whose economy expands sluggishly or minimally isn't competitive in the global marketplace?
Bring those goalposts back. We were talking income inequality - and how that directly relates to global competitiveness (which may result in growth, but isn't predicated on it). In fact, if U.S. wages are falling in respect to world wide wages, that would make the U.S. more competitive (i.e. lower production costs) while income inequality grows. Or are you going to explain what I'm not seeing? [Hint: consuming more does not make us more competitive, it just says we are consuming more.]
And we should include in our Solyndra discussion why you guys really are trying to shit all over it...because it was green tech and if that ends up working out...holy sheeit.
No M we are not just like you. I pointed you to a link which discussed the long [and bipartisan] govt history of failure in these kind of "investments". You still insist that govt can pick winners - even when your examples are cherry-picked 20 or more years after the fact.
But thanks for pointing out the level of discourse you expect - as childish as you are yourself.
And still you can't critique your most holy Hero. Not in the slightest. Why is that? I can criticize Bush just as easily as Obama - why can't you? You are this close to descending into "leave Obama alone" territory.
Why it’s the old extremely idiotic tool in the world of debate called Reductio ad Absurdum
Um, last… I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. It's not a fallacy.
In order to debate over where a particular policy or idea leads, you need to follow the effects of that policy to its logical conclusion. If you can accurately show that a policy or idea causes an unwanted result, then you have successfully shown that policy or idea to be a very bad idea.
For example: "Deficit spending over a long period of time eventually leads to bankruptcy." I don't think you would argue against either the facts or the method of argument in this case. But it is a Reductio ad Absurdum argument.
However, when the chain of cause and effect is broken, leading to a conclusion which is not logically related, then it is not valid. Mark does this all the time. I don't it's correct to label this a Reductio fallacy. In Mark's case, it's usually a strawman fallacy. In fact, that's what it is in this case. He laid out an argument you didn't make, pretended you did, then beat that up.
Thanks for pointing that out Mr. Mouse. I stand corrected.
I guess I saw the use of negative symbols and the stretching of arguments and drew that conclusion. I still maintain it can be both but I do see now how it is more strawman then reductio.
I was wrong.
You want us “on the record” yet you can’t answer a simple question about the benefits of extending tax cuts for only 2 months?
Ah, well...so much for being nice. Why don't you explain to everyone the whole story as to why the tax cut is only being extended two months. Be honest and include the various add-ons to the bill. Honestly, I was trying save us both some time from embarrassing you and examining something so pointless. If you still want to continue the discussion on this bill after you've been completely honest, no problem.
In the form they have presented themselves in up to now (camping out in parks, blocking ports, yelling in the streets, blocking rush hour traffic, interrupting speeches by politicians, and in general acting like children who didn’t get what they wanted) – my guess will be No – no effect
Except that you're only telling the part of the story that you like and not the rest about how they office space now etc.
If they do a virtual campaign through social media and engage with those with an opposing viewpoint like adults (ie none of what I mentioned above) they very well could have an effect.
Which they have been doing from day one and you have chosen to ignore. That's not their fault nor is it mine that you hear what you want to hear.
a REDIRECT, something you claim to hate in everyone else.
I thought we were talking about wasteful spending. In fact, didn't you put up a list of things that the government wastes money on in addition to Solyndra? I think it's pretty disingenuous to talk about one without talking about the other. It's obvious as to why you want to talk about Solyndra-you "win" something and get to shit all over green tech.
And you know this how?
Because he has repeatedly called for oil subsidies to end. Y'know, it's funny, you gripe quite a bit to me about not talking about Obama but how much do you pay attention to him? As much as I do? By your own admission on several occasions, that's big NO, right?
That doesn’t sound like law enforcement, it sounds like aiding a criminal enterprise.
Given what happens on a regular basis with the Mexican drug cartels, this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The problem here is really that drugs are illegal in this country and prohibition doesn't work. Being mad about F&F makes no sense to me. What you should be angry about is how our government handles drugs. That's the problem. Fix that and this smaller shit goes away. Of course, then the right wing blogsphere would lose ammo against Eric Holder and that would really suck:(
Oh yeah, and if I am wrong about Lily Ledbetter, please tell me why.
Why? You're not going to listen. They're only "activist judges" when they rule against something you don't like. Otherwise, it's congressional meddling the law. Your mind is made up. Are there any facts that I could present to you that would change your mind?
I can criticize Bush just as easily as Obama - why can't you?
I've acknowledged that your criticism of Obama regarding targeted assassinations is valid. I don't share your view but you may be right about it in the end and we do need to hear that voice. I also have said his playing politics with gay marriage is bullshit. His comment about the Special Olympics a while back was locker room macho bullshit.
For the most part, though, he's done the best he can with what he was given. I'm not going to make up things to be critical about just so I can adhere to the Cult of Both Sides. I'm done with that bullshit. He has been a good president and his record shows it. I'm sorry if you don't like that but these are the facts.
We were talking income inequality - and how that directly relates to global competitiveness
I'm going to be talking about this in a series of posts coming up so let's table this discussion until then as this is a longer discussion.
I'm not going to make up things to be critical about
There is no need to make up things, you simply have to open your eyes to what is. Somehow I don't think you will do that.
he learned his lesson and has since shifted his energy policy to essentially striving to level the playing field among all energy suppliers by attempting to eliminate oil subsidies and the like
The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500.
The President attacks oil subsidies while continuing to push for subsidies for renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind, solar, clean coal, and even natural gas.
That doesn't sound like leveling the playing field to me. More like playing favorites.
>I was trying save us both some time
That's appreciated. I barely have time to type anything here these days as this is year end here at my company, and my department is slammed (which is a good problem to have) so no, I can't get into much more on here at this point in time.
>Why don't you explain to everyone the whole story
I've seen your version of explaining the whole story a few times on here, like when it came to McCains support for the GI bill in 2008. You only gave half the story - you didn't even inform your readers that McCain had his own version of the bill and PL called you on it.
Looks like I forgot to add a word - only. If OWS only does their virtual campaign, they may have an effect. If they do all that other garbage in addition to their virtual campaign, the garbage will be the face of their movement - and I won't be too worried about them.
I did put up a list of the things that the govt wastes $ on - 2 months ago.
I think it's disingenous for you to say "I think you need to stop looking at this as a "win"" while in the same thread, you describe your point as a "losing battle for the GOP". Sounds like you view it as a "win" for you...which is why you described it as a losing battle. Winning for me, but not for thee?
>Because he has repeatedly called for oil subsidies to end.
If he wanted to end them, he would have ended them by now. He's "called for" something to happen, and that is all you need?
>What you should be angry about
I'm not angry.
>when they rule against something you don't like.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about Lily Ledbetter the person or the details of the suit she brought, so whether I "like" it or not is a moot point. What I don't like is judges rewriting the law to "help" people. If you open that can of worms, what's going to stop some other judge from "helping" his brother in laws corporation in the same fashion?
Sounds like you view it as a "win" for you...which is why you described it as a losing battle.
My central goal is that it be a win for 70 percent of our economy (consumer spending), not me. By ignoring the inequality in this country, the GOP doesn't simply lose politically. They lose with the rest of us by not actually solving problems. You've said in this thread that you want the government to make policy that encourages economic growth. You've also said in the past that if you give tax breaks to the wealthy, they don't invest it in the economy but give to a guy like Bernie Madoff. This is why I support the president and most Democrats: the middle class is the engine that drives our economy and having more revenue from the wealthy helps (but doesn't completely solve) us power that engine. An integral part of that initiative comes from the government. I know you don't like this but it's the way our country works and has always worked.
If he wanted to end them, he would have ended them by now.
If it was only up to him, they would be gone by now. Unfortunately , we have a branch of government that is completely intransigent right now so not much will be getting done.
What I don't like is judges rewriting the law to "help" people.
To a certain extent, I agree with you but it still comes down to interpretation of the law and it's always a battle for intent, right? And the president (along with Congress) can and should rewrite laws that are clearly unfair as was the case with Lily Ledbetter. Incidentally, Ms. Ledbetter never received any of the equal pay that was clearly due her. Instead, she chose to use her case and voice to promote a change to a law that allowed employers to discriminate against women. Her example and the actions that followed by the Democrats are illustrative of why I support the president and the Democratic Party.
An integral part of that initiative comes from the government.
And what exactly is that part? What is it that the govt has to do?
Markadelphia, Obama would just executive order those subsidies out of existence if he truly wanted to. He could have ended them when he had majorities in the house and senate, or at least actually submitted some legislation.
Intent? That case had to do with statute of limitations, something that is black and white. Thems the breaks kiddo.
A president and congress can make changes to laws, I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Judges on the other hand, no thank you.
Actually rld only Congress can change the law. The President either approves or rejects what Congress does. Don't allow M's muddleheadedness to confuse you.
>And the president (along with Congress) can and should rewrite laws that are clearly unfair
As Juris said, presidents can't rewrite laws. Unfair? Fairness is a very, very abtract concept.
>You've said in this thread that you want the government to make policy that encourages economic growth
Key word there is Encourage, or perhaps Allow. Government and politicians don't make the economy grow.
>You've also said in the past that if you give tax breaks to the wealthy, they don't invest it in the economy but give to a guy like Bernie Madoff.
Actually I didn't say that about tax breaks - I said that about the idea of Trickle Down Economics. I think that money does trickle down but not as much as some claim it does.
I think that money does trickle down but not as much as some claim it does.
Ya'know, that made me realize what a paradox it is for the quasi-Keynesians to say that govt spending is an economic multiplier, but private spending isn't. Must be that govt magic and the magicians aren't giving away their secrets.
govt spending is an economic multiplier, but private spending isn't.
But, but, but…
Government spending is fundamentally different than private spending, because … well … because … well, I don't know why, but Mark says it is (even though he can't explain what's fundamentally different about it either), so it must be true, right guys? Guys? Hello? Can you breathe yet?
And of course M is responding in different threads but not this one, and not very specifically to And what exactly is that part? What is it that the govt has to do?
Same old same old.
And what exactly is that part? What is it that the govt has to do?
The government is part of our economy, juris. I know you don't like that but what it does or does not do has an effect on the economy.
Obama would just executive order those subsidies out of existence if he truly wanted to.
Being the Constitutional scholar, I would think that he would understand that it would be illegal. These sorts of changes to tax law have to come from Congress, as juris correctly stated.
I think that money does trickle down but not as much as some claim it does.
Hence the word "trickle" which people seem to miss:)
Government spending is fundamentally different than private spending, because … well … because … well, I don't know why,
But I'm talking about the lack of spending by the private sector not the difference between government spending and private spending. Hanauer said it best in his piece. He's not a job creator and the small amount he spends won't help the economy.
I'm talking about the lack of spending by the private sector
There's a reason for that. It's called not spending what you don't have. What's your solution? Force the private sector to "spend like government"?
Government spending is fundamentally different than private spending, because … well … because … well, I don't know why,
This is my take on your response to the fact that Government finances break down into the exact same 5 basic categories as everyone else. Apparently, you fight this fact because it means that unlimited spending is mathematically impossible.
These sorts of changes to tax law have to come from Congress, as juris correctly stated.
My GAWD, did you just admit you were wrong? That I won? Where is my trophy? I want a parade too! The bully-weasel triumphant!!!
The government is part of our economy, juris.
Of course it is, but that isn't an answer. Let me refresh what I asked...
M:...the middle class is the engine that drives our economy and having more revenue from the wealthy helps (but doesn't completely solve) us power that engine. An integral part of that initiative comes from the government.
I asked "what part" is integral to "that initiative" (driving economic growth). Specifically, what does govt do to fullfil that "integral part". You could either answer that, or admit that you were just throwing some words together that you thought sounded good - even if you had no idea of whether or not they expressed a coherent thought. Either make some sense or shut up, that's all I ask. Is that really asking too much?
The constitution has proven inconvenient to him before, why not one more time?
Specifically, what does govt do to fullfil that "integral part".
They invest in the infrastructure of this country, juris. Defense contracts, roads, schools, research...many other areas...all of which improve our country. This is pretty basic stuff so I'm not certain why you asking this. Do you really not know or are you just doing the bully weasel again?
They invest in the infrastructure of this country, juris.
Infrastructure - which is not all the spending you just listed. Or is it your contention that the vast majority of spending by the federal Dept of Education is on building schools? Feel free to show me the spending line for that. Even most Defense spending is on salaries, benefits, fuel, food, equipment - not on roads or buildings. Infrastructure is a very small percent of the federal budget - you could cut huge, huge chunks without touching any infrastructure spending. [And that is without even discussing the amount of infrastructure spending at the state/local level.] And of course you don't even consider the private investment in many of those same areas.
But thanks M for making such a fool of yourself and then claiming I am too dumb to understand your wisdom. You never pass up an opportunity to show how incompetent you are. Clearly any cuts at all to govt spending will destroy the American economy.
Post a Comment